"...developers that fail to build within targets should be forced to sell the land to the council at 50% of its residential value. The authority would then commission other building firms to complete the work."

...as an incentive for developers to actually carry through on the implied commitment to build houses.

What gives a council the right to compulsory purchase something for only 50% of it's value?

And what makes the council think they will find "other builders" to actually develop the land?

I can see that if the value of land is halved by a measure like this, then that would be an incentive for other developers to buy it and develop, as they are going to increase their margins by a lot (land being something like 50% of the final value of the house)

Dave, they wouldn't be buying it at 50% of its COST but 50% of its residential value, so the original purchaser would be getting back more than they paid for the land.

And why shouldn't LAs buy back land they've allocated for residential use in their Local Plans? Once a developer buys land thus allocated it's no longer available to another developer who WOULD build on it.

That blocking purchase of otherwise deliverable land is the problem here.

Say you had a building plot but for personal reasons hadn't built on it yet, but fully intended to later on. How would you feel if the council came along and compultory purchased it fro half it's value?

The plot I am building on was like that. The previous owner held onto it for 30 years doing nothing with it, hoping his son would build on it, before eventually agreeing to sell it to us for it's market value. I amagine he would have been less than pleased if the council had stolen it from him for half it's value?

Clearly this isn't aimed at grabbing plots of land from individuals, as that's not where the problem lies. The problem is that developers are, without any doubt whatsoever, manipulating the system to allow PP to be granted to more land, which then increases that land's value.

I can describe the situation around us, which makes clear how they operate. PP was granted for several large developments around 10 to 12 years ago. All those developments started, but all then stopped when prices started to slow down. Meanwhile, the developers applied for PP for more land, using the argument that the local authority wasn't going to meet its five year target. Everyone knows that the reason that target isn't going to be met is because the developers have stopped building on land they already have PP for, but that doesn't alter the case for granting PP. Shortly after PP is granted it's "locked in" by the developer doing initial works. We have one very large field near us that has had a network of roads and lamp posts all over it, but no houses!

Dave, "the little man" is never going to be in the "council's" sights.

I could take you to at least eight "building plots", let alone the small areas of what used to be an allotment or garden suitable for building on, in fact there's one right next door to us that could have two or three reasonably sized houses on it.

I think the one thing we all agree on is the planning system is not working at present.

the 5 year deliverable target is a "problem" allowing the developers to get more permission on more land. Clearly the logical thinking would say there's plenty of land with PP so we are not granting any more until the existing land has been developed. That can only happen if the 5 year target is changed.

And while the big developers manage to get PP on green field sites, we see individual plots that are clearly infil within existing settlements refused permission time and time again.

If the big developers were really worried about affecting the local housing market prices, then they could just build more expensive housing that the local average.
That would push the local average price upwards.

Happily, the one development site that has blighted this village for years has at last been sold on to a "proper" developer so we might see it built on and at last act as a defence against the speculative developers who claim that because it's had its OPP renewed twice it could no longer be counted in the 5 year housing land supply because it was "obvious that no one wanted to actually build on it so it couldn't be considered deliverable".

That was the argument put forward to support an application for 20 houses outside the development boundary.

That "blight" of undeveloped development land had OPP for 30 houses! Because it hadn't been developed, 29 houses have been built on another site, 58 houses built on another site, and OPP granted for a further 30 houses to the south of the village.

Those 30 houses made up the "balance" out of the 126 houses the village was expected to provide to make up the housing numbers of the county to 2026, 96 of that 126 having already been built.

So, we are now about to get that original 30 houses, on top of the 29, on top of the 58, making 117 about to be built and being built as we speak. And there is still the OPP for the 30 houses to the south of the village.

You can see how developers can skew things.

Had the LA had the power to acquire that development site when it first came up for renewal of its OPP we would not have so many very unhappy people losing their views over open countryside towards distant hills because a speculative developer took advantage of the loopholes in the NPPF to build outside the development boundary of this village, despite having lost the appeal on having their first speculative application refused, an application they simply brought back to the table along with the threat of another appeal this time citing the NPPF - a threat they subsequently did carry through when the application was deferred in the hope of our 5 year housing land supply being signed off by the time it came before the committee again.